pull down to refresh
In fact for you, to receive 1 sat, it cost 1sat +30% for somebody else to send you 1 sat.... but if I send you 1 CC it cost nothing more than 1 CC.
That’s not what I meant, it’s got to do with the trust score. Like, my 1 sat zap doesn’t hit the same as yours, even if it’s the same amount! hahaha
What's trust score got to do with it?
I zap you 100 sats you get 70 sats (minus routing fees in some cases), territory will get 21 sats, rewards will get 9 sats. (Edit: per @ek's comment below, this will cost the sender routing fees)
I zap you 100 CCs you get 70 CCs, territory will get 21 sats, rewards will get 9 sats. (no routing fees)
Wait for it...
Therefore CCs are the more cost-efficient money within SN, because there is one less layer of rent-seeking.
Just a way to look at it. When you count trust score and daily rewards, a sat/cc from you ain’t worth the same as mine. Like, in ~AI land, yours hit harder because your trust score’s higher.
Rewards aren't covering the last 30% though, it only covers 9% at most, plus whatever gets subsidized, plus whatever boosts happen that day.
Yeah, you’re right. Just saying, sats from high-trust stackers hit harder, because they boost other people’s daily rewards. That’s the angle I’m coming from. Not saying you’re wrong or anything. I once came up with this: #786724 Ahahah
now you are talking about trustcoin not sats
The splits should be more obvious soon. 💅
Looking awesome.
This is the correct answer except the receiver will always receive 70 sats if you zap 100 sats. 3% of the zap amount is reserved for the routing fee from SN to the receiver. If the fee ends up as less, more go into rewards (up to the max of 9%) iirc.
Maybe that's what you meant, but I just wanted to clarify.
Thanks, adjusted.
no worries, this stuff can easily make someone's head spin
If the fee ends up as less, more go into rewards (up to the max of 9%) iirc.
I still wrote it wrong haha.
required daily reminder: we are here to pay for our shitposting
1 sat ≠ 1 sat
1 sat ≠ 1 CC
depends on who we're talking about